Jan 11, 2015, 10:39 pm
Last edit by: tcook052
This new annual thread has been carved out of the previous thread in an effort to reduce the number of megathreads on the AC forum. For those interested the original 2004 - 2014 thread on the topic may be found here.
That original thread started by accident but quickly became a popular place to come and discuss off topic things such as hockey, new movies, or almost anything that wouldn't fit into existing AC forum threads. More Air Canada or Aeroplan topics such as flight feedback, in-flight services issues or mileage earning/redemption are all topics that should go into existing AC forum threads so others can benefit from this information. Topics about other airline/hotel loyalty programs should be posted elsewhere on FT.
While the conversation is more relaxed as it would be in a lounge that doesn't mean however that the FT rules don't apply her as they definitely do so please refrain from controversial topics such as politics or religion, avoid profanities and treat other lounge patrons with the same respect you expect.
tcook052
Air Canada Forum Moderator
That original thread started by accident but quickly became a popular place to come and discuss off topic things such as hockey, new movies, or almost anything that wouldn't fit into existing AC forum threads. More Air Canada or Aeroplan topics such as flight feedback, in-flight services issues or mileage earning/redemption are all topics that should go into existing AC forum threads so others can benefit from this information. Topics about other airline/hotel loyalty programs should be posted elsewhere on FT.
While the conversation is more relaxed as it would be in a lounge that doesn't mean however that the FT rules don't apply her as they definitely do so please refrain from controversial topics such as politics or religion, avoid profanities and treat other lounge patrons with the same respect you expect.
tcook052
Air Canada Forum Moderator
The Air Canada Forum Lounge Thread (2015)
Jan 16, 2015, 10:40 pm
#106
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
I can't imagine a structurally intact aircraft dropping 2000 feet unless it was stalled.
I remember one time flying a glider where I just couldn't get the damn thing down (so a pretty fun day), and I was really tired (and had to pee), so I opened the spoilers and put the thing in a spin. That dropped a couple thousand feet pretty quickly, and was fun
But it was "controlled" (maybe "intentional" is a better word), so not quite the same thing.
I remember one time flying a glider where I just couldn't get the damn thing down (so a pretty fun day), and I was really tired (and had to pee), so I opened the spoilers and put the thing in a spin. That dropped a couple thousand feet pretty quickly, and was fun
But it was "controlled" (maybe "intentional" is a better word), so not quite the same thing.
I wish I could fly. Infinite travel.
Does someone feel like running the math on how long a 2000ft drop with 0 resistance would take? I have a feeling that would settle the SUPRE turbulence debate pretty quickly...
40ft seems like nothing when you think that you fly 30000-40000ft high, but hey that is still a big distance!
Jan 16, 2015, 11:17 pm
#107
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,359
Nice.
I wish I could fly. Infinite travel.
Does someone feel like running the math on how long a 2000ft drop with 0 resistance would take? I have a feeling that would settle the SUPRE turbulence debate pretty quickly...
40ft seems like nothing when you think that you fly 30000-40000ft high, but hey that is still a big distance!
I wish I could fly. Infinite travel.
Does someone feel like running the math on how long a 2000ft drop with 0 resistance would take? I have a feeling that would settle the SUPRE turbulence debate pretty quickly...
40ft seems like nothing when you think that you fly 30000-40000ft high, but hey that is still a big distance!
Jan 18, 2015, 1:39 pm
#109
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K MM
Posts: 903
YYC MLL only has one female washroom with renos right now...
Heads up if you are a female flying out of YYC; with the renos there is now only one female washroom located past the food area. And this will explain why one might see a line of women lining up along the wall past the food area 
Jan 18, 2015, 1:58 pm
#110
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
It's just like disney's bathroom lines for women all over again
Jan 18, 2015, 2:07 pm
#112
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
Busted. Guess years of stuffing various parts of my body to indulge in some sort of perverted fantasy means I'm now getting arrested 
In all seriousness, my mom and my sister used to really curtail my experience at Disney as I had to wait for them
Jan 18, 2015, 2:14 pm
#114
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
Jan 18, 2015, 3:34 pm
#116
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,536
That's enough time for a good prayer....
2000 ft in turbulence is completely out of the question. 200 feet would be extreme.
That being said, Afterburner, care to share the math on that?
I am wondering in your calculations take into account the fact that a plane is moving forwards at 850km/h and any change in pitch would be influenced by said horizontal speed.
2000 ft in turbulence is completely out of the question. 200 feet would be extreme.
That being said, Afterburner, care to share the math on that?
I am wondering in your calculations take into account the fact that a plane is moving forwards at 850km/h and any change in pitch would be influenced by said horizontal speed.
Jan 18, 2015, 3:40 pm
#117
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
That's enough time for a good prayer....
2000 ft in turbulence is completely out of the question. 200 feet would be extreme.
That being said, Afterburner, care to share the math on that?
I am wondering in your calculations take into account the fact that a plane is moving forwards at 850km/h and any change in pitch would be influenced by said horizontal speed.
2000 ft in turbulence is completely out of the question. 200 feet would be extreme.
That being said, Afterburner, care to share the math on that?
I am wondering in your calculations take into account the fact that a plane is moving forwards at 850km/h and any change in pitch would be influenced by said horizontal speed.
http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224835316
Jan 18, 2015, 3:46 pm
#118
Formerly known as tireman77
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,536
Nope, that's just based on dropping an object with no resistance. I'd like to say I used the math I learned while studying engineering but that's long forgotten. I cheated:
http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224835316
http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224835316
The fact remains that an 'aggressive' descent rate for landing is 3000 fpm. That means 2000 ft in 40 seconds. Your estimate of 11 seconds is still 4 times faster. I'm sure we'd hear screaming in the cabin.
Most turbulence bumps are moving up or down for no more than a few seconds before 'bouncing' back. Turbulence compensating autopilot control makes it even smoother on newer planes.
Edit: If anyone recalls the YYZ-ZRH flight a few years back when one of the pilots who was napping, woke up a little dazed and grabbed the controls for an aggressive evasive manoeuvre.
Here is a bit from the TSB report: "The Air Canada Boeing 767–333 (registration C–GHLQ, serial number 30846) was operating as flight ACA878 from Toronto, Ontario, to Zurich, Switzerland. Approximately halfway across the Atlantic, during the hours of darkness, the aircraft experienced a 46–second pitch excursion. This resulted in an altitude deviation of minus 400 feet to plus 400 feet from the assigned altitude of 35 000 feet above sea level. Fourteen passengers and 2 flight attendants were injured. The seatbelt sign had been selected "on" approximately 40 minutes prior to the pitch excursion. The flight continued to destination whereupon 7 passengers were sent to hospital and were later released."
46 second pitch pitch excursion. plus or minus 400 feet. 14 passengers, 2 crew injured. I think we can put the 2000ft issue to bed.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...2/a11f0012.asp
Last edited by PLeblond; Jan 18, 2015 at 3:55 pm
Jan 18, 2015, 4:15 pm
#119
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
It's not the 400ft excursion in 46 seconds that causes injuries. It's the rapid change in vertical rate. The pilot probably pushed the nose down in a panic and changed the vertical rate from 0fpm to 400fpm in 1 second.
A 4,000 fpm descent is actually quite common and, as a passenger, you won't even notice it. 4,000 fpm in a climb is something I see very often. Again, you won't even notice the "aggressive" climb.
A 4,000 fpm descent is actually quite common and, as a passenger, you won't even notice it. 4,000 fpm in a climb is something I see very often. Again, you won't even notice the "aggressive" climb.
Jan 18, 2015, 4:27 pm
#120
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,810
That's enough time for a good prayer....
2000 ft in turbulence is completely out of the question. 200 feet would be extreme.
That being said, Afterburner, care to share the math on that?
I am wondering in your calculations take into account the fact that a plane is moving forwards at 850km/h and any change in pitch would be influenced by said horizontal speed.
2000 ft in turbulence is completely out of the question. 200 feet would be extreme.
That being said, Afterburner, care to share the math on that?
I am wondering in your calculations take into account the fact that a plane is moving forwards at 850km/h and any change in pitch would be influenced by said horizontal speed.
Furthermore, free fall has little to do with turbulence. Which will have a periodic effect due to eddies, pushing up and down. Such that the maximum vertical motion amplitude will be limited by frequency (or period), regardless of how large the acceleration may be.
The issue here of course is accelerations. This said, I do not recall a single accident with modern airplanes where turbulence inflicted truly significant damages. Overstressing the structure, possibly, hence in extreme cases getting the plane down somewhere fairly quickly..
The China Airline 747 that fell by a considerable height still managed to land, but then turbulence was not the issue. I seem to recall that the airframe was written off however.